This paper examines two interconnected aspects of media studies: the limitations of television audience ratings systems and the theoretical evolution of media effects scholarship. The first section critiques the Nielsen ratings model, highlighting problems with commercial versus program viewership, the exclusion of streaming platforms, and measurement inconsistencies. The second section traces the shift from the early twentieth-century hypodermic (magic bullet) model — which cast audiences as passive recipients of media messages — to Stuart Hall's encoding/decoding model, which repositioned audiences as culturally active interpreters of media content. The paper concludes that Hall's model offers a more nuanced account of audience agency and the mediation of meaning.
The real data from audience ratings comes from "people meters" that record what the target sample watches, how long the shows are watched, and what is fast-forwarded. In the case of Nielsen ratings, data is sent daily — both live and DVR data — including which family members are watching. Data is broken down into demographic age groups, and ratings represent what percentage of the nearly 116,000,000 viewers are watching a particular program. A 1.0 rating, for example, would mean that one percent, or about 1,600,000 viewers, were watching a given program (Lotz 2007). A significant disadvantage of this system is that samples of this kind are extremely difficult to make representative of larger target populations.
The reasoning behind audience ratings is that they are the most obvious indicator of a program's success. However, the actual numbers that networks use to decide whether a particular program is a success are not the audience ratings but the commercial ratings. The advertisers who pay for programming do not care whether a person watches a particular show — all they care about is how many people watch their commercials. A highly watched program in which all viewers fast-forward through the commercials would not, in all probability, last very long. This is a major flaw in audience-based ratings.
This dynamic is one reason why sporting events, which people typically do not record, are very popular with advertisers and remain viable and attractive to them despite the ratings of many particular sports. On the positive side, a great deal of television viewing still takes place live, where skipping the commercials is not possible — although channel-flipping during commercial breaks will have some effect on ratings.
Another major complaint about audience ratings is that the use of services such as Hulu, Netflix, and on-demand cable viewing does not count in the overall rating totals. This is because either no ads are shown, or because the ads that are shown often differ from the ads that aired during the original broadcast (Lotz 2007). Thus, a weekly show viewed by 10 million viewers on Hulu but only one million live viewers is not accurately portrayed in terms of its popularity.
As television viewing habits become more fragmented — due to the varied schedules of viewers who record programs or watch them at a different time than their original broadcast — audiences are less bound to traditional television viewing schedules. This is reflected in the decreasing accuracy of audience ratings and the current method used to tabulate the popularity of a particular program. A number of competing companies have emerged and are selling supplementary data to networks, but these companies are not yet competitive with the well-established Nielsen core television rating system.
As a result of the traditional way that television ratings have been compiled and used, another complaint is that innovative programming and certain types of intellectual programs suffer in the ratings because of lower viewing numbers. Exposure is the only data recorded for ratings, and the numbers for who has tuned into the program, who stays tuned in, and who changes the channel are the only relevant behaviors compiled by audience ratings. Audience ratings do not measure whether a particular program is interesting or beneficial to the audience that views it (Barry 2008). No audience behavior other than viewing is considered relevant.
"Ratings measure exposure only, not quality or satisfaction"
Media research that took place in the early part of the twentieth century — particularly in the 1920s — reflected many of the insecurities of that time period. Early researchers believed that communications functioned by actually injecting powerful message content directly into the minds of audiences, who were considered essentially passive. This notion was developed in response to the effect of propaganda on both sides of the conflict in World War I (Baran and Davis 2000). The propaganda used by either side was observed to be highly effective, almost as if it were omnipotent.
The media was believed to have a powerful influence on public opinion, and the notion emerged that the media fired "magic bullets" that only needed to reach or "hit" the target audience in order to produce the desired effect. This theory was called the "magic bullet" or "hypodermic model," which proposed that the media functions as a kind of syringe capable of thoroughly injecting a message or narcotic-type propaganda directly into its audience. According to this view, the mass media could directly influence and control its audience (Baran and Davis 2000). The media was thus held responsible for "injecting" negative messages or influences into a very passive audience that absorbed them with little resistance.
"Culturally active audiences negotiate media messages"
"Contrasting power structures and audience roles in both models"
You’re 48% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.